Re: spiderplants

In article <3l71sj$cod@fun.Direct.CA> (rec.gardens), cmay@Direct.CA (Colleenmay) writes:
> I'm a lousy and lazy indoor plant gardener--but--someone gave me a
> small spiderplant about 5 years ago and it's thriving on neglect
> and abuse.  I water it only when I remember, and when I have the energy
> to climb up to it.  It's massive now. I have it hanging in a bathroom
> under a northerly skylight.  When I do water it I end up saturating 
> it because I know it'll be a while til I do it again.  So it seems
> to like infrequent thorough water in an extremely humid place.
> (I'm in Vancouver B.C., and have never moved it outdoors.)  Good luck--
> they can be beautiful--and I hear beneficial to the enviro??

Given sufficient humidity they will thrive with out any
'watering' as they can take water and nutrients(?) out of
the air. I have a lot (>150) spider plants. Some I water a
lot - they have thick (2") wide leaves, are dark green, and
huge. Others I water rarely - they have thinner leaves
(0.5") and are bluish in color but they also thrive (18" to
24" spread of leaves and lots of 'babies'). They do much
better in the greenhouse where there is lots of humidity
than in the house in the winter where the air gets dry
(wood stove heat). I have read in several books that spider
plants are one of the best plants at removing toxins like
formaldihyde from the air. NASA was one of the sources of
info on this. Their leaves are also quite poisonous I
believe so keep children from eating them.

BlackLightning, Riddle Pond Rd, West Topsham, Vermont 05086  USA
Sales: 1-800-252-2599 x01 or (802) 439-6462   Fax:(802) 439-6463
For wild ideas in laser printing & desktop publishing send email

Censorship is for bureaucrats  - fuck the government before they
fuck you. Fight Senate Bill 314 & the 1995 Telecommunications Act.

Article 683 of sci.agriculture:
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news.duke.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!mustang.alleg.edu!news
From: grubist@murr12.alleg.edu (Thomas Grubisha)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Models for Ecological Sustainability
Date: 17 Apr 1994 20:21:24 GMT
Organization: Allegheny College
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <2os5o4$8em@mustang.alleg.edu>
Reply-To: grubist@alleg.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: murr12.alleg.edu
Keywords: resilient systems/organic waste/sustainable development

	I am initiating a research project that seeks to develop on  
sustainability in ecology.  The main emphasis of the project is to further  
research the works of John and Nancy Todd (natural system design  
precepts), Amory and Hunter Lovins  of the Rocky Mountains Institute  
(resilient technological systems), and Wes and Dana Jackson (prairies as  
ecological farms).   I find their ideas about organic waste treatment,  
architecture, farming, and production very interesting and extremely  
important for the future.  I first learned of these ideas in a piece by  
David W. Orr on Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a  
Postmodern World.  That was the first time that I had heard of some of  
their proposals and I wish to better educate myself  so that I might  
better inform others as well.  This reading  was a handout copy of the  
original and there was no bibliography included.
	I would be extremely greatful if anyone has any information about  
these people, topic areas, or current news on the issues.  Any further  
bibliographical information would be of great help to and to my project  
	Thank you for your time and please address any responses to my  
address below or this group.

T.J. Grubisha
Box 1768
Allegheny College
Meadville, PA 16335  
(814) 332-2238

INTERNET: grubist@alleg.edu

Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:29:28 -0700
"Tony C. Tweedale" <es__act@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
Re: cleaning products
To: Multiple recipients of list BIOSPH-L <BIOSPH-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>

On Thu, 17 Dec 1992, Rumen with a View wrote:

> C. Hanlon has requested info on cleaning compounds.  Perhaps someone out there
> can enlighten me as well.  There seems to be a common perception "out there"
> that commercial detergents are less environmentally friendly than old
> cleaners that grandma used, like borax.
> Most commercial soaps are primarily sodium lauryl sulfate or
> similar fatty acid salts.  Since medium chain fatty acids are easily
> by microbes, the primary ingredients don't strike me as being particularly
> threatening.
> Borax, on the other hand, is a reasonably toxic element for mammals.
> Acceptable maximum tolerable levels for domestic animals:
> boron        150 ppm
> selenium       2 ppm
> mercury      2-3 ppm
> strontium  2,000 ppm
> chromium   1,000 ppm
> cadmium       0.5 ppm
> manganese    400 ppm (swine)
> uranium      400 ppm (rats)
> These numbers are subject to other mineral interactions and species variation.
> However, I don't know of anyone who would suggest washing clothes in uranium
> salts even if it were an effective cleaner.
> Lyle Rode
> Nutritionist
> Agriculture Canada

a reply:

synthetic detergents were at one time composed largely of branched long
chain "fatty acids". bugs could not eat their way around the side chains
and so the detergents did not degrade (does that cause a nutrients
problem--i guess not, that's due to inputs of phosphor in the cleaning

and what about these new citrus oil solvents that are meant to be super
effective, ie can be used to replace industrial strength solvents eg
methylene chloride, cfc's, toluene, etc. (down w. chlorine!). i understand
they are terpene molecular units that do the cleaning (ie are the reactive
molecule in the formulation). take it they are similar to old fashioned
turpentine. degradable? toxicity (chronic, acute)?